yes, thanks for the review, I will add a judgement condition for the "exit_code"if the "exit_code == ARM_EXCEPTION_EL1_SERROR" then set the vsesr_el2.

for the aarch32, it only need set the "ExT, bit [12]" and AET, "bits [15:14]", other bit is RES0

> > Also, is it correct to directly copy the ESR_EL2 bits into VSESR_EL2? Myplease see below spec description, it virtual SERROR syndrome from VSESR_EL2.----- Control returns to the OS, and the ESB instruction is re-executed.— The physical asynchronous SError interrupt has been cleared, so it is not taken again.— The PE sets VDISR_EL2.A to 1 and records the syndrome from VSESR_EL2 in VDISR_EL2.-----

> own reading of the specification seem to imply that there is at least> differences when the guest is AArch32. Surely there would be some> processing here.

> > Overall, this patch is completely inconsistent and unclear in what it> tries to achieve. Also, as I already tated before, I'd like to see the> "firmware first" mode of operation be enforced here, going back to> userspace and let the VMM decide what to do.> > Thanks,> > M.>